Posted on 05/02/2019 12:05:17 PM PDT by BenLurkin
A 15-year court battle has seemingly come to an end after an L.A. federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Spanish museum which acquired a $30 million painting looted by the Nazis is the work’s rightful owner, and not the San Diego Jewish family of a woman who surrendered it 80 years ago to escape the Holocaust.
In his 34-page ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John F. Walter found no evidence the museum knew it was looted art when it took possession in 1993.
According to the lawsuit first filed in L.A. federal court in 2005, the Nazis confiscated the painting from Lilly Cassirer, whose Jewish family owned a prominent art gallery in Berlin in the 1930s. Lilly Cassirer was among the last of the family to flee ahead of the Holocaust. As she tried to leave Germany, a Nazi official forced her to surrender the painting in exchange for the exit visa she needed. Her sister, who remained, was later killed in a Nazi death camp.
The painting was purchased directly from Pissarro’s art dealer in 1900 by the father-in-law of Lilly Cassirer, who eventually inherited it and displayed it in her home for years. When she and her family fled the Holocaust in 1939, she traded it for passage out of the country.
For years the family thought it was lost, and the German government paid her $13,000 in reparations in 1958
(Excerpt) Read more at losangeles.cbslocal.com ...
except you have ‘traded’ and ‘confiscated’ in the same sentence. It’s hardly a ‘trade’ when it’s at the point of a gun. That’s like saying a carjacker traded your car for your life so it’s not your car.
“..a Nazi official forced her to surrender the painting in exchange for the exit visa...”
And the proof that this is the way it actually happened is what?
But it wasn’t a child. It’s a painting. This family would have a lot more peace if they would forgive. I know that would be incredibly difficult, but it’s the only way to not allow the evil ones to win. As the Rabbi said at today’s National Day of Prayer, it’s not what is done to a person, it’s how they respond to evil, that is important. Decades ago, I heard of a study that found that whether or not the Holocaust survivors did well, depended upon their response -— those who would not “move on”, as it were, let it destroy them, and never got over it, but those who determined to have a good life, despite all, were able to find happiness. We’re never going to see total justice done in this life; if we refuse to be happy until we have it, we’ll always be miserable.
“In his 34-page ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John F. Walter found no evidence the museum knew it was looted art...
“Under Spanish law, Walter ruled, the painting is legally the museum’s.”
Sounds like Spain has some version of the “Holder in due Course” doctrine.
Which means unless it can proven that the Museum knew the goods where stolen then they are a “Buyer in Good Faith” and cannot be forced to surrender the property.
Not saying it is good law but the laws of Spain apply or so the judge as said. We wouldn’t want a Spanish judge overruling US laws so I doin not see a problem here as far as the legalities go.
The morality is a different matter. The right thing to do is to return the property ti it rightful owner and get the money paid back form the other party. Isn’t that what the average Freepr would do if they unknowingly and in good faith purchased, say, $9,000 worth the stolen jewelry? They would just give it back to the rightful owner, right?
Accepted or were given? Not 30 but 60 years ago a broke family could have been forced to take pennies on the dollar. What is the difference in that to trading your life for a painting?
50 years, not 30.
60 years, not 30.
You are right from a moral perspective. I also think that is how it works in most US states. But the judge must rule on the law as it is written and in this case it is Spanish law. Or should he just “do the right thing” regardless of the law?
Very prominent family before the Nazis: art dealers, publishers, scientists, a famous philosopher.
Common sense tells you excepting remuneration for anything seals the deal and $13,000 is a serious deal...IMHO
‘your honor, I had no idea the car was stolen. Do I get to keep it?
Either your Signature or your Brains will be on that Contract.
Godfather PING.
In real estate a bona fide purchaser for valid consideration who didn’t know there was a mechanic’s lien on the property, because it hadn’t been filed, would not have to pay the mechanic’s lien. But that’s real estate. No idea what the law is in art dealership.
A deal made under duress has no legal weight.
The $13,000 was not part of the trading for life, it was post-war reparations. Holocaust issues aside, for instance, if I sold a painting at a garage sale for $5, then discovered it was a priceless work of art, I still would have no claim to it. Bum deal, all right, but nonetheless, I’d have no legal claim.
Um, what about that corrupt fmr gov of NJ who destroyed a financial company?
The receiver that got the job of sorting it out treated numbered pieces of precious metals as common assets to be divvied up among those that got shafted instead of returning the identifiable property to the registered owners.
Where in the article is there a reference to “the point of a gun”? They applied for an exit visa. The person in charge of handing out exit visas asked for the painting in exchange for the visa. He got the painting. They got the exit Visa. Think Casablanca.
This was 1939. The Germans had not yet begun the rounding up of Jews to send to concentration camps. A lot of Jews saw it coming and were willing to pay all kinds of bribes to get out. Within a year the Nazis would start the rounding up Jews, but in 1939 nobody was pointing a gun at them.
They didn’t have the cash to pay the bribe. They had a valuable piece of art. Bribing a Nazi official was just as illegal as the official taking a bribe. Most likely the Nazi official, if he had been caught taking bribes from Jews, would have met the same fate that awaited the Jews who couldn’t afford to bribe him.
The bottom line is that the judge found that Spain was an innocent buyer. The facts of the case suggest that even though it was given as a bribe, it was not stolen. It was traded.
As she tried to leave Germany, a Nazi official forced her to surrender the painting in exchange for the exit visa she needed. Her sister, who remained, was later killed in a Nazi death camp.
Have you ever paid taxes?
So when I buy that Ferrari on craigslist for $5000 with NO Pink Slip, I can Keep it right??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.